ArticleArchives of physiotherapy
What do people search online about sciatica? What answers do they get from Dr. Google? A mixed analysis of Italian web-based data.
Article in Archives of physiotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What does Dr Google tell us about tendinopathies? An Italian analysis of online content.Pain management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spine-related leg pain (SRLP), also commonly referred to as sciatica, is characterized by many unanswered questions. Nowadays, patients search for information online to find answers not provided by clinicians. Therefore, this work aimed to (i) collect the main questions and keywords searched by the Italian general population related to SRLP, (ii) analyze the content of the most clicked web pages, (iii) investigate its alignment with evidence-based recommendations, and (iv) assess their credibility and (v) readability. Methods: SEMrush was used to collect questions, keywords, search volumes, and web pages. Credibility was assessed through the QUality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST). Readability was evaluated by the Gulpease index. Thematic and content analyses were performed. Results: Monthly search volumes ranged from 4,400 to 33,100. QUEST scores ranged from 1 to 14 out of 28. Readability scores ranged from 20 to 47 out of 100. Common themes highlighted the roles of medications and physiotherapy, the value of doing effortless activities, and the importance of sleep. Content analysis showed that 11 codes (41%) were aligned with, 7 (26%) were contradicted by, and 26 (96%) were entirely omitted from at least one web page. Conclusion: The findings suggest that inaccurate, poorly credible, and difficult-to-read information on SRLP are common online, leading to plausible targets for the educational intervention of clinicians dealing with SRLP patients. Clinicians are now more aware of the questions that their patients could be asking to Google and the answers it provides about SRLP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.